AS Ühisteenused – Court Ruling (Estonia, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA HarjuMaakohtu18 April 2024Estonia
final
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The data subject brought an action against AS Ühisteenused, a company providing parking services ('controller 1'). The company that made a claim against the data subject arising from a contractual penalty in the amount of €79,57 for a car parking violation. According to a debt notice of 29 April 2022 sent to the data subject, the violation occurred on the 17 April 2019 and the penalty was to be paid by 2 May 2019. The data subject sold the car on 27 August 2019, and was not aware of AS Ühisteenused's parking regulations or the alleged violation on 17 April 2019, as they did not personally use the car. On 25 March 2022, AS Ühisteenused and Julianus Inkasso OÜentered, a debt collection company (‘controller 2’) entered into an agency agreement on the basis of which and Julianus Inkasso OÜ was authorized to represent AS Ühisteenused in the recovery of the debt owed by the data subject. As two controllers jointly determined the purposes and means of processing, they became joint controllers under Article 26 GDPR. As a result, the data subject’s debt was published on the website taust.ee (eng translation: background.ee) by Julianus Inkasso OÜ. On 29 May 2022, the data subject requested both controllers to stop processing their personal data and delete them from the website. According to [https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/106072023098 §146 of the Estonian Civil Code], the expiry date for the request arising from a violation of the law is three years. Since the penalty was to be paid by 2 May 2019, the three-year deadline expired on 3 May 2022 and the claim was therefore time-barred. Therefore, the data subject asked a court to order the controller 2 to delete the debt information linked to them and to pay €270 by way of damages for per-litigation legal costs. In its reply, controller 1 stated that they have a right to disclose this type of data. In particular, under [https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/104012019011 § 10(2)(5) of the Estonian Data Protection Act], the transf

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Decision AuthorityTallinna Ringkonnakohus
Reviewed AuthorityHarju Maakohtu (Estonia)
Full Legal Summary

The data subject brought an action against AS Ühisteenused, a company providing parking services ('controller 1'). The company that made a claim against the data subject arising from a contractual penalty in the amount of €79,57 for a car parking violation. According to a debt notice of 29 April 2022 sent to the data subject, the violation occurred on the 17 April 2019 and the penalty was to be paid by 2 May 2019. The data subject sold the car on 27 August 2019, and was not aware of AS Ühisteenused's parking regulations or the alleged violation on 17 April 2019, as they did not personally use the car. On 25 March 2022, AS Ühisteenused and Julianus Inkasso OÜentered, a debt collection company (‘controller 2’) entered into an agency agreement on the basis of which and Julianus Inkasso OÜ was authorized to represent AS Ühisteenused in the recovery of the debt owed by the data subject. As two controllers jointly determined the purposes and means of processing, they became joint controllers under Article 26 GDPR. As a result, the data subject’s debt was published on the website taust.ee (eng translation: background.ee) by Julianus Inkasso OÜ. On 29 May 2022, the data subject requested both controllers to stop processing their personal data and delete them from the website. According to [https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/106072023098 §146 of the Estonian Civil Code], the expiry date for the request arising from a violation of the law is three years. Since the penalty was to be paid by 2 May 2019, the three-year deadline expired on 3 May 2022 and the claim was therefore time-barred. Therefore, the data subject asked a court to order the controller 2 to delete the debt information linked to them and to pay €270 by way of damages for per-litigation legal costs. In its reply, controller 1 stated that they have a right to disclose this type of data. In particular, under [https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/104012019011 § 10(2)(5) of the Estonian Data Protection Act], the transf

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for AS Ühisteenused in EE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

18 April 2024

Authority

DPA HarjuMaakohtu

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. AS Ühisteenused - Estonia (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: